Janardan Kisan Gangawane And Another v. Nivrutti Dagduji Gangawane And Others

2026:BHC-NAG:935 1 Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 4339 OF 2025 1.

Janardan Kisan Gangawane, Aged 65, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Deoul, Tq. and Distt. Washim.

2.

Panchafula Kisan Gangawane (Dead) Thr. L.R's 2-A. Kisan Namdeo Gangawane, Aged 87 years, R/o Deoul, Tq. and Distt. Washim.

2-B. Purshottam Kisan Gangawane, Aged 56 years, R/o Deoul, Tq. and Distt. Washim.

2-C. Anusayabai Vasantrao Ghuge, Aged 50 years, R/o Rajankhed, Tq. Barshitakli, Distt. Akola. PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.

Nivrutti Dagduji Gangawane, Aged Major, R/o Depul, Post Wara Jah. Tq. and Dist. Washim. 2.

Gangaram Dagduji Gangawane, Aged Major, R/o Depul, Post. Wara Jah. Tq. and Dist. Washim. 3.

Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Washim, Tq. and Distt. Washim.

4.

Nimtandar - II, Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Washim, Ta. And Distt. Washim.

5.

Superintendent of Land Records, Collectorate Building, Washim, Tq. and Distt. Washim.

6.

State of Maharashtra, Through Collector Washim, Collectorate Building, Washim, Tq. and Distt. Washim. RESPONDENTS ______________________________________________________________ Shri S.S Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners. Shri C.A. Joshi, counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri S.C. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3, 5 and 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

DATE : JANUARY 13 , ORAL JUDGMENT RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2 Judgment 2.

By this petition, the petitioners/original plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the trial Court rejecting the application for amendment of plaint.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit no.5 of 2018 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from taking the forcible possession and obstructing cultivation of the suit field being Gat No.149 as described in the plaint. He submitted that during pendency of the suit, even before the evidence has begun, the defendant nos.1 and 2 have indulged in the activities of digging the soil on the suit property and erected iron poles and iron fencing. By way of proposed amendment, the plaintiffs sought to incorporate the aforesaid subsequent events and amend the prayer clause for grant of relief of recovery of possession. He submitted that the amendment is necessary for complete and effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the suit. However, by ignoring the crucial aspects, the trial Court has rejected the application with costs mainly because the proceedings of the suit have been directed to be decided in time bound manner by separate orders passed by this Court. 4.

The learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos.3, 5 and 6 have opposed the petition and submitted that the plaintiffs have sought the amendment to prolong the litigation which is a time bound matter as ordered by this Court in Writ Petition No.1704 of 2020. They submitted

3 Judgment that there is no need to incorporate any contentions about the forcible dispossession of the plaintiffs as sought to be raised in the proposed amendment.

5.

While considering the controversy involved, it has to be seen that the amendment is sought by the plaintiffs even before any evidence is led in the civil suit. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs have proposed to place on record the subsequent events which appear to be necessary for deciding the actual controversy involved in the suit. Pertinent to note, although the civil suit is directed to be decided expeditiously, all relevant contentions which have bearing on the merits of the suit need to be brought on record. Further, the position of law is fairly settled that all amendments which are necessary for deciding the actual controversy involved in the suit be generally permitted as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Others [(2022) 16 SCC 1].

Although the defendants have filed their written statement in the suit and the issues are framed, denying an opportunity to the plaintiffs to amend the suit to incorporate the necessary pleadings would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs. Considering the stage of the suit, the defendants can be compensated by awarding appropriate costs. Having regard to the above mentioned factual and legal aspects, the amendment application filed by the plaintiffs ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

4 Judgment I.

The writ petition is allowed.

II.

The order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the trial Court on application at Exhibit 192 in Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2018 is quashed and set aside.

III.

The application at Exhibit 192 in Regular Civil Suit No.5 of 2018 is allowed subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment.

6.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) APTE Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 21/01/2026 11:47:58